Perhaps All The Health Insurance Companies Should Be Asked To Defend Why They.......

are important to the system - how they save us money - how much they save us - and justify why they should remain in place.

In my humble opinion - I don't think they can justify their existence. They should be put on the hot seat and tell us why they are better than a government run - single source - universal program.

Somebody should put dollars together to compare both systems - and not made up figures. The insurance companies know how much it costs to administer their programs. They have the numbers as to how much profit they make. They should show us how they help people - if they do. They should provide us with testimonials of people they have benefited. They should be able to provide us with numbers of how many people praise them for their insurance and coverage and how many people file complaints with them.

If they are so important to the future of healthcare - they should be able to justify their existence and tell us why we the American public would save money using them versus a single payer - universal system.

This debate has NEVER actually been about providing health care to people who need it, or about cost effectiveness, efficiency, or anything else that's thrown up as a smoke screen whenever the topic of health care reform arises.

What this debate is REALLY about is preserving the obscene profits of the insurance industry, big pharma, the for-profit health care industry, and so on. This is America, where profits trump people by default, and corporations call the tune that political leaders dance to. It's just bidness, nothing more. Sick people are a resource to be mined, just like coal and natural gas.

3. Yes. And the insurance companies will tighten their grip on our throats just like AIG, BoA

and the other financial institutions when the time comes to break them up. They will demand tax payer money because they are "too big" to fail - ie: they employ hundreds of high paid execs who must continue their extortion into perpetuity. The little guys get cut loose without so much as a severance check.

2. Blue Shield/Cross are parasites - skim 30% off the top & try to deny services so their profits rise

just total leeches. Our work force is always trying to get our health deductions paid directly to local HMO or service providers but management keeps paying it to BLUE screw you who skims money for itself while providing no services in return. Then Blue screw you denies services left and right so it can make more money. The perfect BLUE screw customer lives 90 years, never gets sick, and dies instantly with no services necessary.

that a single-payer system will not have some pencil pushers sitting at desks denying claims, or pre-reviewing them. At the very least, we will have to have fraud detection, look at all the fraudulent claims that have been submitted to Medicare and Medicaid over the last several decades, and the just plain inaccurate ones. Yes, the vast majority of doctors and hospitals don't abuse these two programs, but there will always be someone who tries to "game" the system, and we will require protection from the scam artists that are always with us.

Insurance companies might make the claim that they've been providing that "service", and I suppose that if we eliminate them, the people who used to deny, challenge, or audit claims will be the most qualfied people to do it for a governmental bureaucracy that will administer single-payer.

Our current oversight method is equivalent to controlling the movememnts of a herd of cattle by hiring hundreds of cowboys with sets of reins to each individual cow. Global budgeting for capital and operating expenses is the equivalent of putting a fence around the cattle and letting them move freely within. If providers try to cheat the system, they would take money directly out of the pockets of their colleagues, who would tend to notice and strongly object.

Individual providers don't have the means to track what Doctor Feelgood off in some strange city has going on. They're not going to be able to put monitoring devices in his office to see what he really does for the people who come in there and get handed a twenty dollar bill, while he bills a single-payer plan for $100 for their office visit.

We're clearly going to have tracking by individual of health expenses, some government bureaucrat will be able to go to a computer terminal, type in your Social Security number (or other unique identifier) and see every place you've ever sought medical help. Of course, the insurance industry can already do that.

There will always be cheats, and there will always be someone whose job it is to try to catch most of them, or at least the sloppiest of them.

that they will know exactly how much their collegues are billing? How will they know that some particular doctor is even performing services for people, if he just bills the single payer system at about the average?

Given that health care there is a part of the general budget and not in a sequestered fund like Medicare, they have underfunding problems. Fraud is not a problem. The reason is the local scale of the oversight.

You're fooling yourself if you think that the US record would even be ten times what Canada's is. Every time there's a pot of money out there, there will always be someone looking to loot it. And we will need people to ask questions about even legitimate uses of that pot of money.

Live in a perfect dreamworld if you want to, but it will KILL single-payer if we do not have a fraud detection method, however imperfect, in place. And it should kill it, we have scoundrels in the US who are far less honest than the average doctor in either Canada or Europe.

That isn't because they have a better type of person there. It is because global budgeting forces providers to divide a specified and limited amount of cash among themeselves. Controlling the movement of a herd of cows by surrounding them with a fence would of course imply that someone has to be put in charge of fence maintenance; otherwise, the system would break down. That still is a far cry from hiring a bunch of cowboys with sets of reins to each cow.

4. Better yet, we need some Senators and Reps to write and introduce single payer versions

Edited on Sat Mar-07-09 11:32 AM by John Q. Citizen

of any bills introduced. Then we can compare the costs and benefits.

Single Payer is a Pubic-Private Hybrid. In fact it's the original and only time tested public private hybrid. The public self insures, and the private sector delivers the health care.

It works very well.

We need the Insurance industry and their bought and paid for Democrats and Repos to put up or shut up.

We need a fair debate where their plans can be inspected dissected and questioned, and where a Single Payer Fee for Service taz supported system can be inspected, dissected, and questioned as well. And where competing ideas can be tested.

They add no value whatsoever. They siphon value off. That's all they do. Pure parasites.

I keep asking my Senator - Enzi - What makes it the "American way" (as he puts it) to make a "deal" with business partners who add no value and, in the case of health insurance, actually drain value?

He won't answer because the truth of the matter is, it is the Republican way to divert other peoples' money to wasteful, totally unnecessary "middle men" big businesses.

Single payer just means one huge risk pool - which gives the pool the "economy of scale" so that there is enough premium to pay claims.

Single payer would take off the layers and layers and layers of admin costs for doctors, hospitals and clinics involved in having to submit claims to so many different places and submit paperwork to try to get into so many different "networks", vastly improving efficiencies. Not to mention vaporize the the admin costs of the health insurers which is, of course, built into the exorbitant premiums we currently have to pay.

transaction processing services. Many large employers self -fund their health benefits...the insurance companies just administer the plan for a fee. The insurance company has no financial interest in denying claims..their goal is to pay claims as accurately as possible according to the terms of the plan. In an audit, an underpayment is just as bad as an overpayment.

Even Medicare services are administered by private companies under contract to the government (always have been).

Here are some interesting statistics offered in the 2008 survey results:

* 44% of all workers were covered by self-funding in 1999, increasing to 55% in 2008 * 62% of workers with employers having 5,000+ employees self-funded in 1999, increasing to 89% in 2008 * 62% of workers with employers having 1,000 to 4,999 employees self-funded in 1999 compared to 76% in 2008 * Firms under 1,000 employees didnt increase levels of self-funding (for 2008: 12% of workers for firms with less than 200 employees, and 47% of workers for firms with 200 to 999 employees,) as the nature of self-funding is more conducive to larger employers

You asked what percentage of employees had self-funded medical plans, I found some numbers for you.Did you even read the information.

And to answer your question...no.

Who We Are

A leader in health policy and communications, the Kaiser Family Foundation is a non-profit, private operating foundation focusing on the major health care issues facing the U.S., with a growing role in global health. Unlike grant-making foundations, Kaiser develops and runs its own research and communications programs, sometimes in partnership with other non-profit research organizations or major media companies.

We serve as a non-partisan source of facts, information, and analysis for policymakers, the media, the health care community, and the public. Our product is information, always provided free of charge  from the most sophisticated policy research, to basic facts and numbers, to information young people can use to improve their health or elderly people can use to understand their Medicare benefits.

The Kaiser Family Foundation is not associated with Kaiser Permanente or Kaiser Industries.

Perhaps the best introduction to the Kaiser HMO and Kaiser Permanente Medical Care Plan is the summary by Mr. Edgar Kaiser that the less Kaiser does for patients the more money it makes. To get the full context one can go to the University of Virginia and review the presentation Mr. Edgar Kaiser (then Kaiser CEO) made to President Nixon through Mr. Erlichman  the less we do the more we earn. This convinced President Nixon to go forward with the HMO Act of 1973 with Kaiser as the template. The conversation is recorded below within the Nixon Whitehouse Tapes.

John D. Ehrlichman: "On the on the health business "

President Nixon: "Yeah."

Ehrlichman: " we have now narrowed down the vice president's problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser's Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, Well, I don't think they'll work, but if the President thinks it's a good idea, I'll support him a hundred percent."

President Nixon: "Well, what's what's the judgment?"

Ehrlichman: "Well, everybody else's judgment very strongly is that we go with it." President Nixon: "All right."

Ehrlichman: "And, uh, uh, he's the one holdout that we have in the whole office."

President Nixon: "Say that I I I'd tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it's, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I'm not to keen on any of these damn medical programs."

Ehrlichman: "This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am "

President Nixon:

Ehrlichman: "This this is a "

President Nixon: "I don't "

Ehrlichman: " private enterprise one."

President Nixon: "Well, that appeals to me."

Ehrlichman: "Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can the reason he can do it I had Edgar Kaiser come in talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because "

President Nixon:

Ehrlichman: " the less care they give them, the more money they make."

I'd like to hear an explanation of why insurance companies hire reams of people to investigate a woman wanting reimbursement for chemo to find out that she had neglected to mention a yeast infection on her application.

They provide valuable investment choices for investors who have too few choices as it is. You don't really expect all those "financial experts" and their wealthy clients to go out and get real jobs, do you?

16. Why are Americans who are DENIED INSURANCE charged 250-600% more than insurance companies pay?

((Without insurance companies we some Americans (insured) couldn't escape from the perverse pricing system of fantasy "regular" hospital/medical prices that only came into existence because of insurance negotiations.))

They can just use their pocket change to create psychologically persuasive but highly misleading ads they can run in the media.

I don't think they can justify their existence. My understanding is people who have medicare like it better than people with private insurance. Plus medicare (aka single payer) is cheaper. Unless there are other issues that need to be looked at the cheaper program that people like more is the better one.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.